Trump and the Israel-Iran War: Farce and Tragedy

An explosion during a missile attack in Tel Aviv on Sunday. Leo Correa/AP

History, Karl Marx once observed, repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. But perhaps both can happen at once.

These past few days, I’ve been having flashbacks. As the Israel-Iran war continues and President Donald Trump weighs whether to join Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attack on Tehran, I recall the run-up to President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq 22 years ago. That was a time of hubris—a word that became the title of the 2006 book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff on how the Bush-Cheney administration sold that war with lies, misrepresentations, and false promises of a quick and easy victory.

It was also a time of limited debate and oppressive consensus, with few voices questioning Bush and Cheney’s rush to war over the sketchy case that Saddam Hussein possessed a robust weapons-of-mass destruction program and was in cahoots with al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11. Many senators and representatives who were unsure of this course of action (which included no well-developed plan for what to do after deposing Saddam) and who feared its consequences were reluctant to share their concerns in public. Pundits, including liberals (see Thomas Friedman), went along with the post-9/11 bloodlust; neocons (see David Brooks) became enthusiastic cheerleaders for a war they had advocated long before 9/11. Those of us who suggested an all-out invasion might be unwise were mocked and denigrated.

During those months, I was one of the few left-of-center commentators at Fox News, and when I appeared on air and expressed doubts about the arguments for the invasion and contended it could lead to a chaotic mess—I advocated allowing more time for the UN-led weapon inspections to continue before pursuing any military option—my patriotism was questioned, and I was regarded as a lunatic. It was a lonely time in Washington, DC, for us skeptics. Yet the doubters were right. The war, now widely considered a strategic blunder of immense magnitude, claimed the lives of about 4,500 Americans, and an estimated 200,000 Iraqi civilians died in the violent conflict that ensued for years after the invasion. Bush’s folly did not deliver, as was promised, the rise of democratic pro-West governments throughout the region. It taught us a lot about unforeseen consequences.  

This week, I was talking with a former senior White House national security official, and when the topic of Iran came up, this person remarked, “Whenever we bomb another country, 25 years later it usually doesn’t look like it was a good move.” That was certainly true for Iraq. This also applies to our past with Iran.

In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup there that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and placed the pro-Western Shah, Mohammad Reza, in power. He ran a repressive regime for more than two decades—and was a staunch ally of Washington—until he was forced out by the Iranian revolution of 1979 that ended with Islamic fundamentalists gaining control of the government. The new leaders of Iran justifiably blamed the United States for the Shah. Anti-American protests led to the storming of the US embassy, and 66 American hostages were seized and held for 444 days—a crisis that destroyed Jimmy Carter’s presidency.

And here we are.

On Thursday, Trump said he would postpone for two weeks a decision to strike Iran to allow for time to negotiate a deal regarding its nuclear program. Remember, President Barack Obama had crafted such an accord, and Trump, during his first White House stint, ripped it up and replaced it with nothing, which led to Iran expanding its nuclear capabilities. Trump is now talking about fixing the problem he created. Look at this chart from the Financial Times:

With Trump, you can never know if anything he says has any solid meaning. The fortnight deadline might be real, or his stance could change. By the time you read this, much could be different. But what’s been especially farcical about the possible tragedy underway—what’s different from last time around—is the role of intelligence in the prewar chattering.

In 2003, there was no good intelligence that Saddam had chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or even a vigorous program to cook them up. During a visit to Cairo in 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell had said that Saddam “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.” Other US intelligence assessments reported the same. Yet in the summer of 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney proclaimed “we know” Saddam was rigorously pursuing WMDs and close to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

For the next seven months, the White House endeavored to persuade the public that it possessed solid intelligence of this—when it did not. Bush and Cheney were hellbent on removing Saddam by force. The flimsy intelligence didn’t matter. Still, they felt compelled to persuade the public they had the goods on Saddam. There needed to be a patina of evidence the Iraqi dictator was the threat to the United States they claimed he was. That’s why Cheney leaned so heavily on the intelligence community to produce proof that Saddam was neck-deep in WMDs and bosom buddies with al-Qaeda.

This time around, Trump isn’t even bothering to dress up his possible war with intelligence.

At a March 25 hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that the intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.” That was unambiguous. It was also the finding of the Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community released that month.

This doesn’t matter to Trump. On Air Force One a few days ago, he told reporters that he believed Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear weapon. Informed that Gabbard had said otherwise, he shot back, "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one." On the basis of what? Information Netanyahu pumped into his big brain? Or his own gut instinct? Trump didn’t say. And as a narcissist, he treats his own hunches and assumptions as solid-gold information.

How did Gabbard respond to Trump’s dismissal of the intelligence community she oversees? She blamed the media for misrepresenting her congressional testimony and insisted, “President Trump was saying the same thing that I said.” She added, “We are on the same page.”

Uh, not at all. Her comment was ludicrous. She and Trump were saying the opposite thing. But to stay in good graces with the Mad King—amid media reports that Trump had soured on Gabbard and frozen her out of deliberations related to Iran—she had to proclaim to the world with a straight face that back is white. What matters most to her is not what the intelligence community has concluded but sucking up to the boss. This often happens in government, and this is what occurred to a certain degree before the Iraq War. But it was not as absurd as Gabbard's performance. The United States has a director of national intelligence who’s willing to tell an obvious and ridiculous lie in public—and it’s no big deal. Just another day in Trump land.

As for Trump, he doesn’t give a whit about the intelligence. For years, he has endorsed and promoted Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin’s false claim that Moscow did not intervene in the 2016 election to help Trump win, despite the intelligence community’s finding that it did. Trump doesn’t need a figleaf from Gabbard and the spies to launch a war (and one without congressional authorization). He’s so accustomed to spewing disinformation and falsehoods, and he has learned that this works. It’s gotten him elected to the presidency twice. So what if Gabbard and the intelligence agencies say Iran is not yet a nuclear threat that poses a danger to the United States? Trump doesn’t care.

Bush and Cheney could only have dreamed of getting away so easily with peddling their invasion. Trump is handling the lead-in to a possible war as he handles everything else—in erratic fashion with no regard for facts or truth. In such preposterous fashion, he may lead us to tragedy.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com

After the horrific assassination of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and the attempted murder of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, there was much discussion of political violence and harsh rhetoric. Many commentators tried to both-sides the issue, noting that violent acts have been waged by persons on the right and the left. And some even contended that it was mainly the fault of libs. Donald Trump Jr. was in that camp, declaring the alleged Minnesota assassin seemed to be a leftist—when the evidence indicated he was a MAGA, anti-abortion, and anti-trans fanatic. 

A lot of the discourse that occurred in the immediate aftermath ignored a basic and undeniable point: Only one of the two major political parties is led by a fellow who has both excused and encouraged political violence (as well as domestic terrorism). I had something to say about that:

As has become routine, there’s been too much news recently. Thus, you might have missed this scoop from me and my colleague Russ Choma. A few weeks ago, the world learned that Donald Trump Jr. and his pals were setting up a private club in Washington, DC, that cost up to $500,000 to join. Here would be a spot where members of the Trump oligarchy could gather—and perhaps whip up schemes and deals. No doubt, lobbyists, crypto grifters, and others seeking favorable treatment from the Trump administration would be eager to join and rub elbows with the Trump elite.

One of the founding members of the club is David Sacks, the tech titan who is Trump’s crypto and AI czar. He’s been a prominent promoter of the venture, but he says he’s not one of the owners of the club. We discovered that the club was set up by a longtime business associate of his. Government ethics experts say this arrangement and the club itself raise questions. At the very least, this new enterprise shows that instead of draining the swamp, as Trump once vowed to do, he and his crew are developing it. Here’s that piece.

When there’s a crisis, a president ought to seek counsel from trusted advisers and government officials. Yet the Israel-Iran crisis has caused some top Republicans to use the occasion to lavish praise upon Dear Leader rather than participate in the important policy discussions regarding what the United States ought to do. In a social media post, Mike Huckabee, Trump’s ambassador to Israel, proclaimed he had no advice to offer Trump. Moreover, he told Trump to ignore all those around him who are sharing perspectives and just listen to “HIS voice,” meaning the voice of God.

If Huckabee has nothing to say about such a crucial matter, why is he in the job and drawing a salary? By the way, did Trump listen to God’s voice when he ordered the roundup of law-abiding migrants and ripped apart families, separating parents from their children? Or when he destroyed USAID and ended assistance to people facing starvation and disease, the sort of people whom a certain savior wished to help? Jesus, these Jesus guys are too much. In his message to Trump, Huckabee also noted, “I do not try to get in your presence often, because I trust your instincts.” If this contest was for the brown-nose-iest remark of the week, Huckabee would be a shoo-in.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a regular entrant in DCotW, was asked how the United States should respond to Iran. She replied “Well, this will be entirely up to the president…Whatever that call is that is made by President Donald Trump, I will be supportive of.”

More sycophancy. Ernst did state that Iran must be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. But she took no position on how that should happen. Given that she’s a member of the Armed Services Committee, you might expect her to have an opinion. But if she said something of substance, it might not sync up with Trump, especially since he has flip-flopped on this issue like a hooked fish on a boat deck. Besides, nothing is more important than being a cheerleader for Trump.

While questioning Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this week, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) inquired if he had received any orders to have US military forces shoot at unarmed protesters. Hegseth chuckled and asked why Slotkin was asking this. Slotkin pointed out Mike Esper, who was a defense secretary during the first Trump presidency, had written in a book that Trump had once asked him, “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?” Hegseth responded, “Senator, I’d be careful what you read in books and believing it—except for the Bible.”

He didn’t answer her question. By the way, Hegseth has written three books.

In an interview related to Pride Month, Richard Grenell, the most prominent gay apologist for Trump, who serves as a special envoy for Trump and as Kennedy Center president, declared that gay people have “largely achieved equality in this country” and that “normal gay” people support Trump.

Grenell might have missed this news item: Two weeks ago, the Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination in the country, endorsed an effort to overturn same-sex marriage. This was another sign that on the right there is a growing sentiment to take up this battle once again, the thinking being, we did it with Roe v. Wade, we can do it with gay marriage. Grenell doesn’t want to acknowledge that the rights of the LGBTQ community are directly threatened by Trump’s allies.

As the judges have noted in the past, they don’t like handing the trophy to the most obvious dumbass of the week. Especially when that person has been widely recognized for his or her stupidity. But this week it was tough for them to ignore Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and his heinous remarks about the Minnesota killings. Lee put out a tweet with a photo of suspect Vance Boelter and remarked: “This is what happens When Marxists don’t get their way.”

In another post, he used that same image and joked, “Nightmare on Waltz Street,” referring to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (and misspelling his name). Noting that Boelter had in his car material about “No Kings” protests, Lee also commented, “Marxism is a deadly mental illness.” As if the demonstrations that drew millions of Americans were Marxist operations.

How full of hate must one be to josh about these killings and spread disinformation about them? Though Lee deleted his social media posts after a barrage of criticism, the judges had little choice this week...until they saw a comment from Mike Vespa, the senior editor at Townhall.com, a right-wing website, and the recipient of Americans for Prosperity Foundation's 2013 Andrew Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Activism and Investigative Reporting.

Vespa was upset that Lee took down his posts. He wrote:

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) caved to liberal media pressure regarding his posts about the recent shootings of two Democratic state lawmakers in Minnesota. Was it his best moment? No, but the uproar was beyond manufactured. It was another way for Democrats to get something of a win amid their powerlessness to stop the Trump administration.

Imagine thinking that doing the decent thing and removing these despicable posts was a mistake because it gave the Democrats a “win.” At the wire, Vespa edged out Lee for this week’s trophy. He can put it on his mantle with the Andrew Breitbart Award.

There was a wide range of responses to the recent issue on Tulsi Gabbard and her bizarre video about the prospect of nuclear war.

Stephen Wend wrote:

I suppose one could argue that calling Tulsi Gabbard a conspiracy nut is subjective and a matter of opinion; what cannot be argued is she is profoundly unqualified for the position. She really has no relevant experience. Put her together with FBI Director Kash Patel, his deputy Dan Bongino, and political hack John Ratcliffe at the CIA, and you have put national security at significant risk. I almost forgot our loose lipped Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. And that's not mentioning the dismissal of experienced people in the military and the NSA.

As for nuclear weapons, there was a report that came out in 2012 called Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report. Members of the commission included General James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. The report advocated the elimination of all land-based missiles, as they are essentially obsolete and redundant. They are also expensive and dangerous. For a hair-raising read, check out Eric Schlosser's book Command and Control, in which he recounts several of the post-WWII near-disasters with nukes. He includes a chronological account of the Damascus incident in Arkansas, when an explosion occurred in a missile silo that blew the several-ton cover off the silo and dropped the warhead about a quarter mile away.

There is a website called Nukemap. You can pick just about any city on the planet, choose how powerful a warhead you'd like to launch and whether you prefer a surface explosion or one that takes place before hitting the ground. Several years ago, I punched in six or seven targets and the size of warhead and looked to see the results in the Northeast. It's quite sobering.

Valerie Bateman sent in a complaint:

The tone and tenor of this newsletter is short on facts and long on rhetoric. I don't want preaching to the choir. I want less rhetoric and more facts stated plainly without the same tone used by Trump and his goons.

She added a list of quotations:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” —Desmond Tutu

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” —Theodore Parker

“Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.” —Attributed to John Wesley

I thought the issue was full of not-so-fun facts about Gabbard and the conspiracy theory and Putin-friendly talking points she was promoting. I believe that disclosing this information about Gabbard—even if it is preaching to the choir—is in sync with those inspiring quotes.

Steve Kane emailed this:

I'm with most of what you're saying in this piece except for your passage at the bottom: “Gabbard has previously echoed Moscow talking points. When Putin invaded Ukraine, she blamed the West, not Russia, tweeting, ‘This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/Nato had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns.’” It appears that you agree with the general premise that either Russia has no legitimate security concerns, from a Russian perspective anyway, or the Russians are just paranoid because everything that the West/NATO/US does in Ukraine and elsewhere is for perfectly benign and peaceful purposes. Which is it sir?

When the Cold War ended, I believed it might be better to shrink rather than expand NATO and reduce US troops in Europe to demilitarize the region. And, of course, Russia has always had cause to be suspicious of Western aims. But whatever security concerns Russia had regarding Ukraine and the West, they did not justify Putin’s illegal and barbaric invasion. His subsequent conduct of the war and reluctance to end the conflict—as well as his war crimes—suggest that his security concerns could not have been addressed by reasonable compromise. He wants control of Ukraine, either directly or indirectly.

Lenny Liebman wrote to grouse about the headline on a recent issue: “Will Trump’s Disinformation Lead to Civil War?”

It’s an inaccurate headline. Why a question? Why not something more to the point and a statement of fact: “Trump’s lies link him to Hitler, Mussolini, and Fascism, as a Civil War in the US Rages” or something like that.

Lenny, maybe a headline like that would have gotten more clicks, but I don’t believe a civil war is yet raging.

Mike Eichel commented:

You said: "Trump is not facing an election now, but he is continuing to use scare tactics to skew reality. Since he returned to the White House, he has cited phony emergencies to abuse presidential power, falsely claiming that the entry of undocumented people into the United States amounts to an invasion waged by a foreign power and that trade deficits threaten the survival of the nation."

I fear, in Trump's mind, he is, in fact, facing an election. He is first thinking he’s facing the 2026 mid-term elections, where he does not want to see the MAGA party lose its slim majorities in the House and Senate. Furthermore, Trump is also facing the 2028 election, where he is hoping to create enough chaos to either be allowed to run again to fix the problems (he is creating) or to eliminate/delay the 2028 election indefinitely. To me, it seems clear his call-up of the military in LA is a precursor to imposing martial law and then using the imposition of martial law to implement his Executive Order regarding elections to allow him to either remain president or run for a third term. How can we be sure Trump is not thinking about the next presidential election for himself?

A reader who goes by the initials ARC thought I was too soft when I wrote, “Ultimately, Trump’s disinformation operation is aimed at undermining, if not crushing, our diverse and messy democracy."

At what point, do you suppose, we can transform our chicken-shit characterization fully—from "undermining...our diverse and messy democracy" to what it actually is. And that is an unabridged, seditionist treasonous war on truth, itself, and the very tenets of American democracy. At what point had the MSM began to report the brazen lies gushing from Trump—rather than hide behind some delusional non-existent facade of impartiality—would that have made a difference?

That's an interesting question. As I have written, the best way to deal with disinformation is to discredit the source, not battle each falsehood. Had the MSM treated Trump as an inveterate liar from the start would that have made a difference? We’ll never know. 

Beverly Magid sent this email on the day of the “No Kings” protest:

You said it all. He lies, Fox feeds it to his base. and they continue to swallow it whole. Today’s protests were massive. Let’s see how that plays against alternative facts. I am curious how it will come out. Can reality triumph over disinformation?

That’s the big question? With Trump’s tariffs causing economic chaos and higher prices and his mass deportation crusade yielding a constant stream of cruelty, will American voters be moved more by these real-world impacts or his never-ending flood of false assertions and fear and loathing? Last year, tens of millions of voters bought his bunk when it was just rhetoric. Now that they see the consequences, will some regard Trump differently? We’re all waiting to find out.

This week we have a special guest appearance.

On Wednesday night, during a raging thunderstorm, a doe gave birth to a fawn in my neighbor’s yard. The next morning, the baby had managed to make its way into our backyard, where it first took refuge in our falling-down garage and then curled into a ball next to a mulch pile. I learned that after a doe delivers, it tucks the fawn away, perhaps in high grass or other foliage and watches it from a distance, as to not draw predators toward its progeny. This doe did exactly that, taking up a position on the other side of a fence and gazing at the fawn, while occasionally disappearing, perhaps to forage. On one of my visits to check in—without getting too close—I spotted the fawn, now about 14 hours old— walking gingerly on its spindly legs. It then nibbled on a leaf and returned to the mulch pile.

The deer in our neighborhood are tremendous nuisances. They roam the streets without fear. They eat gardens. Our neighborhood listserv is full of invective about these creatures. I’m as annoyed as my neighbors. But seeing this little one navigating the first day of its life under the watchful eye of its mother—a wonderful distraction—made me glad that our devoured roses, magnolia tree, and hollyhocks had provided the sustenance that led to this. At least for now. Once this fawn is up and on its way, we’ll return to having Moxie bark at these unwanted visitors and watching them ignore our pleas to leave.